to himself. but who never did. man he was the kind of man, in short, that america has always been grateful tocially have.kest especially in our darkest hours. etn who lead by example. r those who expect nothing. nothing in return.es, i >> mr. president, i didn't thetion, i should have, but i am really -- i have been waiting last hour to make sure that it was okay with his wife that i said something. i haven't had time to do much bd other than feel bad. to as i talked to irene, i did talk to her. but i want to make sure that everyone understands the depth of my feelings. i'm speaking for the entire senate. m he believed in me more than iany believed in myself. many years ago, a couple of decades y ago.nate, aays he said that you're going to do great things in the senate. he always talked about my leaving the senate, and heh, always said that i did the right thing by telling me to do the right thing. the chapter of inouye in the senate is something that is remarkable. not only his military record, but what he did with the defense aspects and security aspects of this country.an than there was

>> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you by public service by your television provider. >> this week the senate judiciary committee approved changes to the electronic privacy communications act of 1986. this week we want to explore what those changes may mean to different groups. joining us this gregory of the center for democracy and technology. what is the current law when it comes to law enforcement and e- mails and cell phones? >> the short answer is that it is confused. for e-mail that is less than 180 days old, law makers need a warrant. for more than 180 days, it is just a subpoenas of there is no judicial intervention or high standard of proof. for documents to store in the clouds, that is also available with a subpoena. with cell phones there is the statutory provision. this has been in different places. they need a warrant. others say if it is gps location they need a warrant. there is not a clear role. >> what are the changes that the senate judiciary committee has approved? >> they focused on content of communications. they said it should

that broadcasting is make an effort to include all of the diversity in america, so you hve niche -- you have niche programming to the african american community, and telemundo has done a lot for the hispanic community. i think they understand that broadcasting does things for the american people that our constituents that these other telecommunications devices do not do and certainly are not regulated to do, but if you are going to get rid of broadcasting, what about all of the public policies that are served? are those not viable still? i think the answer is yes. >> -- >> we are the ones they regulate. if you get rid of us, you get rid of much of their purpose. they listen to us. we listen to them. there is a healthy tension that exists between an industry and its regulator. we value our industry because we think the american people do, and, therefore, the fcc does, as well. >> over-the-top -- >> not that i know of. they have to be fair to all. i think our industry and not those other industries serve all of the public values that i have just spoken of. >> are the regulatory issues that you would

size of the confederate states of america. it covered a space larger than than the tire -- entire european territory conquered by napoleon. william henry stewart said that even smart people failed to see the difficulties of the union's task. the knot apprehend the vast extent of the rebellion -- they did not apprehend the vast extent of the rebellion, as he put it. >> the second year of the civil war and a strained federal government and weak union forces. coln's "n drehle on linkedin rise to greatness." this weekend on c-span 2. >> "tubes" author andrew blum joined just on "the communicators." >> i tried to make our virtual world as tangible as possible. i found out one of the major maps of the internet i was looking at, it was called tele geography. it was made in milwaukee. they watch this thing come off a giant schoolbus machine. it seem like a great way into the store of figuring out not only were the internet is, but also trying to come to terms with what is still physical about our virtual world. it turned out that one thing that is physical are the very large printing pres

that broadcasting is making an effort through multicasting to include all of the diversity of america so you have bounce tv that has niche programming to the african-american community, obviously, univision, telemundo have done a tremendous thing in providing content for the hispanic community. i think lawmakers in their heart of hearts understand that broadcasting does things for the american people, their constituents, that these other telecommunications devices are not willing to do and certainly are not regulated to do. but if you're going to get rid of broadcasting, whabt all those -- what about all those public policies that are served by broadcasterrers? aren't those valuable still? i think the answer is yes. >> host: how much clout do broadcasters have at the fcc? >> guest: i hope some because if you get rid of us, you get rid of their purpose. they listen to us, we will be to them. there's a healthy tension that exists between an industry and its regulator, but we work cooperatively with them. we simply value our industry because we think the american people do and, therefore, the fcc do

Excerpts 0 to 4 of about 5 results.